The defendants were part of a group (called the DeKalb Avenue Crew) that robbed dealers of cocaine and marijuana. Relying on the Circuit’s prior caselaw, the several defendants argued that evidence of an effect on interstate commerce was insufficient “because there was no evidence that any marijuana involved in the …

In United States v. Nastri, 15-489, the Circuit held that the District Court did not err either by declining to dismiss a juror or by applying USSG 4B1.3’s criminal livelihood enhancement, and that the prosecutor’s remarks in summation were not improper.

The juror in question learned from a third party that another juror had been dismissed after seeing the defendant in shackles. The District Court questioned the juror and the juror told the Court that the knowledge she obtained from the third person would not affect her ability to be impartial. On these facts, absent a specific showing of harm, the defendant could not show that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced.

On summation, the prosecutor called certain defense arguments “red herrings” and “distractions.” The defense did not object at the time, so the Circuit reviewed these comments for plain error and, after comparing the comments to …

Tavarez was convicted after a jury trial of one count of conspiracy to distribute and possess with intent to distribute cocaine. He argued on appeal that: (1) the district court abused its discretion by admitting Tavarez’s bank records and tax returns into evidence; (2) the government impaired his right to a fair trial by improperly interfering with his access to witnesses, including by not granting them use immunity; and (3) the government’s statements during summation denied him a fair trial. The Court rejected all three claims.

First, the Court agreed with the district court that Tavarez’s bank records were relevant and that their probative value was not outweighed by any risk of unfair prejudice. The evidence showed that Tavarez deposited and withdrew large sums of cash at relevant times, despite reporting no income or …

At Malik Williams’ gun trial, the prosecutor, in rebuttal summation, said, “this is not a search for reasonable doubt, this is a search for truth.” The circuit noted, and indeed the government conceded, that this statement “was improper and should not have been made.” A statement like that “has the potential to distract the jury from the bedrock principles that even if the jury strongly suspects that the government’s version of events is true, it cannot vote to convict unless it finds that the government has actually proved each element of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt” and that under the presumption of innocence the jury must acquit even if it cannot “independently find the truth.”

Nevertheless, this “unwise and erroneous” remark was not plain error. The remark …